Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

An Apology

A few days past, I made mention, in comments, of the blogger "Unamused" and his blog "Unamusement Park," citing him as a useful source of information on racially motivated black-on-white violence, while warning about his "truly foul language." Various regulars then took me to task for this mention of such a frightful racist.

I then wrote up a lengthy apologia in which I tried to explain what I would have taken to be the obvious fact that to mention somebody's blog while warning about his "truly foul language" hardly counts as an unqualified endorsement.

But, in all fairness, I thought I ought to revisit his blog before posting said apologia. So I took a couple of hours out of my day in (amazing and wonderful) Siracusa, Italia, to review his last few months of postings.

Well, what can I say, but this: I am deeply ashamed of what I said about his supposedly "foul language," and I am even more deeply ashamed of the treatment he has received here at WWWW - for which I apologize, without reservation.

Comments (18)

I'm an unhappy camper about this post. Totally aside from any racial questions, that particular blogger's language certainly does leave a good deal to be desired. I'd never so much as seen his site but finally took a grand total of perhaps twenty minutes to a half an hour to browse there and have no interest in going back, and this is in part because of his language and (if one wishes to separate this from language, which I don't) his entirely unnecessary sexual talk in the name of humor. Juvenile and distracting. And that's putting it mildly. No, that isn't true of every post, but as I said, it came up in the course of my randomly browsing for only a short period of time.

But come on: Is it appropriate at *this* web site for us to be discussing the question: "Does the blogger x use bad language?" I maintain that it is not. For one thing, people had darned well better not start giving examples, and as you'll note, I didn't.

Then there's the Attitude with a capital A displayed by said blogger when he commented here, an Attitude that encompassed a seemingly irresistible urge to speak extremely slightingly of the evidences for the existence of God (a topic on which _all_ our contributors, Steve included, know a little bit of something).

Yeah, I found it extremely odd that a philosophically astute author of this website would humbly prostrate himself before someone who dismissively and condescendingly says, in the author's own thread:

"Also, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of supernatural beings, let alone a personal God."

Setting aside the question of sufficient evidence, any person who would say such a thing in such a manner is flat-out intellectually dishonest at a very deep level, and self-satisfiedly so. Like all his like-minded brethren, the fellow probably hasn't even taken the time to assiduously examine "evidence" as a philosophical concept.

Steve, whether Unamused's language is horrendous or not, it is more earthy than we would tolerate here at W4, and that was fully adequate reason to warn readers before making their way over there. I cannot fathom a reason to apologize for that, I would have done exactly the same in mentioning any site that might bother some of W4 readers.

Various regulars then took me to task for this mention of such a frightful racist.

Only white racism is frightful. All other forms of racism are nothing more the expressions of racial and ethnic solidarity by peoples who have been oppressed by whites. Swirl that nihilistic reality around in a glass and sip it in your mind for an afternoon, and you will get a good taste of the reality of modern America's so-called racial progress. Race in America is a house of cards that is a lie from the table on which the first card is stood up, to the very top.

I'm not familiar with UP but I have read some bloggers that I think are in that "circle" e.g. Mangan and OneSTDV. I agree that some of what's posted in very indecent (e.g. OneSTDV made a post that made the case that blacks as a group/race are analagous to "retarded children" in relationship to other races in this country - like the retarded child in class compared to the other normal children). I agree about the distasteful nature of the frequent sexual references made by the HDB'r too. I'd even go as far as to say to Jeff S. that he shouldn't link to this stuff - there are people that compile these stories and do it in an objective way without offensive language.

But in response to Lydia above, I think it should be noted that WWWtW gave offense to this blogger first by referring to him as "chicken s__t" and sarcastically caricaturing (I think - for all I know maybe it's an accurate caricature) his positions and (I think) sarcastically implying that the evidence for the HDB/race realist positions is a joke. The latter, I think, is the source of this fellow retorting that there's no evidence for Christianity.

Also, I don't think the fellow should have been banned after one comment in Steve's post. I've seen plenty of abortionists who aren't banned here. Are racists (note: no scare quotes) worse than abortionists?

I'm working my way through Mark Mazower's "Dark Continent" at the moment, which in large part deals with the problem of race in Europe in the Twentieth Century. Two thoughts follow.
1) The politics of "race" is far more complex than Unamused Park thinks it is. It cannot be reduced to non-white v white. In fact much, if not most, of the racial violence of the Twentieth Century was between whites.
2) So UP fails to provide the detailed historical framework to define the problem.

Two other thoughts -

3) Lydia is quite correct to focus on UP's character. He seems to be nasty and puerile. A blog isn't peer reviewed, so I'm not likely to trust a nasty and puerile blogger. If he can't get his rhetoric right, that's his problem, and no-one elses.
4) Is UP's racial hatred genuine, or is it just a mean spirited attempt to stir up controversy? Who cares? Either way, it's evil.

UP didn't strike me, in his one comment, as nasty and puerile at all. Smug certainly, and I am no fan of smugness, but nothing worse. I, with Bruce, was amazed he was banned when I've seen much worse.

I also don't think he hates black people. He definitely doesn't like them very much, but 'hate' is a word that is bandied about far too frequently that, especially with the usual suspects of identity categorization, is beginnng to mean anything short of outright fawning adulation.

I was describing UP's blog. Lydia's description of the posts there seems accurate.
I don't like to see a word like "hate" politicised either. But there's something rotten and horrible at work on that blog, to my mind. Spite, rage, hostility - call it what you will.
I won't be going back. I'm old fashioned enough to take Paul's advice. There are some things that aren't worth discussing.

I figure that if Affirmative Action went away, at least 70% of the racialist right would disappear overnight.

Affirmative Action is only one of the big problems. The complete and utter hypocrisy of the enforcement of hate crime laws is another example. Then there's the way the media and other institutions go out of their way to conceal the racial identity of blacks and hispanics who commit violent crimes while making it very obvious about the racial identity when the perpetrator is white. Many of us are sick of hearing about the plight of blacks and hispanics since there is no balance on a host of serious issues.

Unamused? Hateful? Excessive bad language? None that I could see except in quoting tweets from black people verbatim.

I certainly don't mind the no-profanity comment policy, but the sad facts of life are that the various liberal interest groups know perfectly well that you can hide your true plans and actions behind a wall of vapidly sweary verbiage that can't be directly quoted on the nightly news or the respectable conservative media. It's also one of the biggest reasons travesties like 'gay marriage' get passed at all-the truth about most male homosexuals and their common practices is unsavory in the extreme but a necessary prerequisite for dedicated opposition to their agenda.

If you would like this truth unvarnished, go to a certain site called "My Posting Career," and enter 'Grindr thread' into the searchbox. WARNING: Educational about the true nature of gays in all the worst ways.

Long story short for those who don't want to wade into the depths of homosexual depravity, a non-gay downloaded the Grindr iPhone app to see if there was any depraved or degrading act that any random homosexual in the vicinity WOULDN'T agree to. There wasn't, despite his best imaginative efforts to make the scenarios as revolting as possible. And he further found that most of them treat AIDS and the possessing thereof as a game, where 'pozzing' an unsuspecting new homosexual or 'exploring' college student was treated with roughly the same joy as Christians would treat conversion. A few minutes of THAT total depravity overload and your opinion of harsh language is going to go strongly in the direction of "not nearly harsh enough!"

The coda to that sordid saga: The man who trolled Grindr under a white profile did NOT get banned for suggesting to a black man that they engage in master-slave roleplay; in fact, nearly every black homosexual agreed to it wholeheartedly for the promise of casual sex. He DID get banned for breaking out of character at the end of his exploration and saying that the guy needed to "find Jesus."

Conservative, racist, homophobe... Although each of the aforementioned traits tend to occur or develop hand-in-hand, the possession of just one of these qualities strongly indicates a serious lack of intelligence. I.e. the more intelligent one becomes, the more open-minded they become; the more open-minded one becomes, the more accepting they become.

I also want to happily remind you that your type is losing the Culture War. The "liberal establishment" has all but succeeded. Look at today's youth that so many conventional adults criticize. We (yes, we) are informed, we are open-minded, and we stop at nothing to include everyone because it is the moral thing to do. These values typically align with that of leftism, and to connect the logical dots of this assertion for you, this means that leftism is taking over -- like it or not. As if the informed nature of today's youth weren't enough to aggravate the typical conservative, take a look at the liberal viewpoints that even the most ignorant of individuals develop by receiving an education through America's university system (which also is coincidentally, you guessed it, very leftist!). This is an even stronger indicator that the bigoted views expressed in the referenced article, mpcdot.com, etc. are completely dying out. They are being rendered unavailing -- and are dulling in light of that which is not only moral, but logical: the social left.

Be thankful I didn't go into detail on my disputation against "Christianity". As a summary, religion itself is completely self-serving. It is used immorally to attempt to control the masses. But the masses are waking up. You are losing.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):